Rob C wrote:I don't know what the solution is but I do know what we can do to try to prevent something like this from happening again. We can take better care of our mentally ill. We can model our licensing procedures after a country that doesnt have these issues and doesnt have loopholes. We can ban and buy back high capacity magazines and clips, while dumping and reloading a clip may take very little time it does take some time. We can ban and buy back weapons that can fire a lot of bullets in a short amount of time. I spoke to most of these things in my previous post.
I agree we can take better care of out mentally ill. What loopholes are you talking about, or is it just more buzzwords you've heard from the media? You admit that you know little about firearms yet you want to ban them because you are ignorant about how they operate. Seems a bit irrational to indicate such a thing when you have so little knowledge on the subject matter. For the record there are very few firearms that use clips. Calling them clips instead of magazines is more buzzwords used by the media and movies. As for buying back or issuing a ban without a grandfather clause would be the equivalent to confiscation and would never fly in this country. Any form of confiscation in this country would opposed with force.
Rob C wrote:Regarding semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles I really don't care what you call them and what is similar to and different from any other gun. What I do care about is why we need to have weapons that can deliver such destruction in so little time. We need to draw the line somewhere, there are many weapons the military uses but I am not legally allowed to possess.
So this just proves my point to how ignorant you are on the subject of firearms. Perhaps you should educate yourself on what it is you wish to ban prior to saying they should be banned.
Rob C wrote:Certainly we can all agree limiting the destruction one can do with a legal gun is a good thing!
You couldn't be more wrong. A gun is a tool, and much like any other tool, when used improperly it can cause destruction. A great deal of destruction were caused by a group of people armed with nothing more than box cutters. Timothy McVeigh caused a large amount of destruction without firing a single shot. People intent on doing harm will do so no matter how many laws or bans are put into place. So, I and many others do NOT agree with your assumption.
Rob C wrote:While I'm no expert on guns I do know different guns require different trigger finger pressures and they utilize different reloading mechanisms which can delay the firing of the next bullet. I'm fairly certain semi automatic guns from years ago did not fire and reload as quickly as they do today.
You are once again just indicating your lack of knowledge on the subject matter.
Rob C wrote:I certainly wouldn't be opposed to placing a police officer at every school if those smarter than I thought that would be the best path to follow. Who could argue with what JC wrote!
I will go one step further and state that it should be operated similar to the air marshal program. The armed police officer should appear to be a teachers aid or custodian, etc. Or in high schools they could pose as students. The element of surprise is crucial for this to work. If we are talking about a single police officer on display in full uniform it wouldn't work. While it may be a deterrent to some attacks, there are other sick and deranged people that will simply make sure the attack begins by disabling the uniformed officer first.
Rob C wrote:What I would not be interested in is another solution offered by the NRA that included armed volunteers guarding the playground. It's in their statement at the end.
If you read a bit closer the NRA is indicating that any volunteers would need to be fully trained (and I presume certified) and that it would be a good volunteer role for a retired police officer or for the properly trained retired military personnel. I guess you only pay attention to what you want to hear. In your mind NRA=bad and any left wing liberal plan to hinder American's rights=good.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. - Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. - Thomas Jefferson
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. - Benjamin Franklin